F Pax not allowed to use FC lav??
Jul 28, 2016, 3:45 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, AS 75k, AA Plat, Bonvoyed Gold, Honors Dia, Hyatt Explorer, IHG Plat, ...
Posts: 16,859
Totally speculating, but perhaps it was something that you wouldn't notice, such as the smoke detector? (assuming here that its purpose is to detect when a passenger is smoking in the lav, and that flying without it is acceptable if pax don't enter the lav)
Jul 28, 2016, 3:53 pm
#19
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,484
Clearly, it could benefit the crew and airline perception to simply take a few seconds to explain a bit better to the few F passengers, to avoid having these discontented discussions afterwards.
Jul 28, 2016, 4:46 pm
#21
Moderator: Luxury Hotels and FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palo Alto, California,USA
Posts: 17,857
UA is increasingly flying with defective lavs. I was on a TPAC 747 earlier this year where BOTH downstairs lavs were out of order for the entire flight and we were told we had to use the upstairs lavs!
Jul 28, 2016, 4:57 pm
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: 4éme
Posts: 12,044
Jul 28, 2016, 4:58 pm
#23
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IAH/EWR-LGA/MIA
Programs: UA Global Services 3.2 MM, Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium Elite, AA Exec Plat
Posts: 2,506
I was on a flight a few months ago where the same thing happened, except that FA offered an explanation - smoke detector wasn't working. I found it rather humorous (as well as presumptuous and annoying) that the crew could use the lav (presumably because they could be trusted not to smoke) while F passengers could not (presumably because they could *not* be trusted not to smoke).
Last edited by st530; Jul 28, 2016 at 5:12 pm
Jul 28, 2016, 5:01 pm
#24
Join Date: May 2016
Location: SLC
Programs: United Gold, Hilton Silver, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 768
Totally agree, at the very least this was owed to the passengers.
UA is increasingly flying with defective lavs. I was on a TPAC 747 earlier this year where BOTH downstairs lavs were out of order for the entire flight and we were told we had to use the upstairs lavs!
UA is increasingly flying with defective lavs. I was on a TPAC 747 earlier this year where BOTH downstairs lavs were out of order for the entire flight and we were told we had to use the upstairs lavs!
Jul 28, 2016, 5:06 pm
#25
Moderator: Midwest, Las Vegas & Dining Buzz
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 17,976
Actually, it DOES add up. He was in BF, so there are two lavs to use there. He would not have been told to use the upper ones had he not been in BF.
Jul 28, 2016, 5:25 pm
#26
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,484
I was on a flight a few months ago where the same thing happened, except that FA offered an explanation - smoke detector wasn't working. I found it rather humorous (as well as presumptuous and annoying) that the crew could use the lav (presumably because they could be trusted not to smoke) while F passengers could not (presumably because they could *not* be trusted not to smoke).
Jul 28, 2016, 5:26 pm
#27
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: PHL
Programs: UA Plat, 2MM
Posts: 1,860
The list of possible mechanical/safety reasons for blocking the lav for "crew only" has been interesting and educational. Is it even possible that the crew would actually do this to have the lav for themselves and it did not have any problems? I presume you feel that a UA crew would never do this.
Jul 28, 2016, 5:48 pm
#28
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Morris County, NJ
Programs: UA 1K/*G, Avis Pres, Marriott Plat
Posts: 2,305
The list of possible mechanical/safety reasons for blocking the lav for "crew only" has been interesting and educational. Is it even possible that the crew would actually do this to have the lav for themselves and it did not have any problems? I presume you feel that a UA crew would never do this.
That's also something HIGHLY visible, so the likelihood of mgmt hearing about it is pretty high.
Then again, I don't understand why people still try to rob banks ... So there you go.
Jul 28, 2016, 6:43 pm
#30
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,484
I remember there was a thread a couple years ago about a 735 or some such where almost all the lavs in the rear were malfunctioning, so the crew did just exactly that -- blocked off the front one for themselves so it wouldn't be overwhelmed with passengers. Highly questionable.